The UK’s top judges have backed away from proposals that would have seen them appraised by court users, despite strong support from senior City litigators.
An ongoing working group set up by the Judges’ Council, overseen by Commercial Court head Mr Justice Andrew Smith, has rejected plans that would have subjected judges to upward reviews.
The move was being fronted by the Commercial Litigators Forum (CLF) which had been pushing for the reform since last September.
The body had stressed that the feedback would be private and would focus on judges’ handling of trials rather than their legal knowledge.
However, a judicial spokesperson said: “The Judges’ Council is reviewing the issue of judicial appraisal. The Council has adopted the general principle that appraisal of judges should be by judges of equal or higher rank.”
The Judiciary’s decision, thought to have been made in recent weeks, means that the CLF has been forced to go back to the drawing board to look at how to move forward.
Despite the latest setback, the organisation is still keen for court members to be given the opportunity to review the performance of judges.
SJ Berwin partner and CLF committee member Hilton Mervis said: “We are happy for judges to appraise themselves, but the CLF is considering whether they should do that with confidential feedback from court users (clients, solicitors and barristers). This is something the CLF is exploring and will be taking soundings on from its members.”
While not surprising, the judges’ decision will be seen as a blow to many, as last year nearly half (43%) of respondents to a Legal Week survey of senior litigators and barristers said they would ‘definitely’ support the introduction of an ‘upward appraisal’ system for judges.
The performance and credibility of senior judges came under further scrutiny in April this year when Mr Justice Peter Smith was found guilty of misconduct by the Office for Judicial Complaints and was given only an official reprimand but was allowed to continue sitting in court.
However, Bar Council chairman Timothy Dutton QC said: “There is a difference between appraisals in a context where judges appraise each other compared with an appraisal involving court users.
“The moment you suggest involving users in judicial appraisals you start treading in pretty dangerous territory and it becomes seriously problematic in terms of judicial independence.”
I am not in the least surprised that the plan to appraise judges by court users will be thumbed down, in that the ineptitude of very few judges will be exposed. The result of such exposure will ridicule the judicial system as it currently stands.
The peer appraisal contemplated should be dismissed as a gimmick. We would rather not have any review or appraisal of these sitting judges - who by some way or the other got appointed - than waste any fund to a useless venture, as has always been the case of similar judicial reviews regarding practice in general.
I'm not surprised they objected. Secondly, even if they had agreed, such reviews should not be private but public. Judges are consumers of public funds and therefore should be accountable. This does not mean compromising their independence. I suggest we start 'Rate My Judge'.
It is completely necessary and "in the interests of justice" that judges are held accountable for their judgments. I believe that notification to the Prime Minister is the method by which a judge is made accountable to the electorate - but correct me if I am wrong. Some years ago there was a press release in the Times claiming that there was increasing masonic influence/membership amongst the judiciary - that is not independent - nor is it democratic. Either the judge is accountable in some manner (where there is procedural or substantive abuse which is 'deliberate' as opposed to 'inadvertent', or the Lord Chancellor is made accountable as an elected representative holding executive functions. I have also seen press released statistics in that out of approximately 1,800 complaints, five were processed as 'rude' - that is deficient and shoddy and beggars belief that the judiciary is ethical and even professional. Feedback can be positive as well as negative - if a judge does a good job, then he should receive statistical data affirming the same anonymously by the parties. Besides there is a serious need to bring the judiciary into the 21st century and the Ministry of Justice are way behind the times in that regard.
This is modern tosh, like 360-degree appraisals. Judges should be appraised by their peers and seniors, not undermined - as is all too likely to happen under the proposed system.
Related Events
Latest Jobs
